Thursday, November 18, 2010

20 term congressman C.Rangel convicted of 11 of 13 counts of charges by the Office of Congressional Ethics OCE, setup by N.Pelosi in 08 to target and nullify black inluential African American leaders. OCE's own lawyer was forced to admit he didnt see any prove of corruption. J.Hoover era tactique. Yesterday, he was denied a change in legal reps. he'd run out of money after paying $2 mill. +$ for lawyers. Even if this is a Democratic. lead panel, it's a witchhunt. I wonder what he did that brought down the wrath of this panel on him? Oh yeah, that's right, he was a champion of the poor in New York City

Rep. Rangel Walks Out On Congress. Ethics Travesty.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), yesterday walked out on the kangeroo-court hearing of the House Ethics Adjudicatory Subcommittee yesterday, saying that, "I respectfully remove myself," given that the circumstances and principle involved in the proceedings are unacceptable. He gave an eloquent explanation and left the chamber, soon after the hearing was begun.

At immediate issue was the fact that Mr. Rangel is without legal representation right now, which means—given that the Adjudicatory Subcommittee's session was to be on confirming the correctness of facts, in a huge body of recently filed material, they should not proceed if the Congressman is not properly advised and represented. However, the Subcommittee, and Chairman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) were on course to do so regardless.

Rangel addressed this head on. "Fifty years of public service is on the line. I truly believe that I'm not being treated fairly and that history will dictate that notwithstanding the political calendar, I am entitled to a lawyer during this proceeding."

The Subcommittee nonetheless, after a private executive session on the matter, proceeded on their railroading operation. Rangel's office issued a written statement this afternoon.

Yesterday's events throw new focus on Obama's backing for the assault on Rangel, and related operations against Maxine Waters and other veteran black Congressional leaders. Right after the July 22 release of the Statement of Alleged Violation (SAV), a formal list of 13 ridiculous charges against Rangel, Obama said that he hoped the Congressman would "end his career with dignity."

No Legal Representation

Rangel stressed many points about the railroading against him. "A week ago, 80 pages of what can be considered summary judgment was issued, which I think would indicate that this Committee may not be prepared to call witnesses, that this Committee was asked that a judgment be made based on admissions and exhibits." That is exactly what happened, later in the day.

Rangel ridiculed the rush by the Committee, after the two years of slowness. "What does it mean that we have Thanksgiving, Christmas and perhaps Congressional trips, preparing for the next Congress? How far does this go to a person not having counsel, not having due process, because we don't have time?

"Well, I think we ought to find the time. I'm prepared to stay here, to get counsel and to have a hearing on this."

Look at the particulars behind the lack of legal counsel. As Rangel said, "It took two years before this Statement of Alleged Violation was reported." He incurred $2 million in legal fees. Then, on Oct. 7, the Subcommittee finally informed him of the hearing date (Nov. 15). On Oct. 15, his attorneys told him they would need another $1 million to represent him at the hearing, and pulled out—informing the Committee even before their client! The Committee Chairman and Counsel knew this. But Chairman Lofgren sent Rangel a letter Oct. 22, saying that there is no reason for him not to have a lawyer.

The Committee rules don't allow him to have pro bono legal representation either. He can set up a legal fund, but that will take some time. Even if he can get a new legal team together, they will need time to get familiar with the 30,000 pages of testimony, 550 exhibits, and so on.

After Rangel told Lofgren this morning that he had to excuse himself from the proceedings, when she was trying to press him to formally ask for a continuance—the kind of legal action he said, as a citizen, he would not take without a lawyer acting for him, Subcommittee member G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a judge for 15 years, intervened. Butterfield said that, "Even though the respondent did not specifically make a motion to continue this hearing, I deem his comments to be a motion to continue. And I would like this committee to seriously consider a motion to continue.... I served as a judge in my state for 15 years, and I know the importance of counsel, especially in—in this environment. And so I'm going to ask that we—we deem his statements to be a motion to continue and that we discuss it in executive session."

The Subcommittee did so; they met in private; they turned down the motion, and proceeded anyway as planned.

The Subcommittee RailroadingAfter Rangel left their proceedings, the Subcommittee continued with their intended railroad agenda, which in short, did the following. They heard from Committee Counsel Blake Chisam, who entered over 550 exhibits, and testified that "the facts are the facts" relating to the 13 charges against Rangel, and they should be accepted by the Subcommittee, and sent on to the full Ethics Committee for that body to rule on the law involved, then recommend punishment.

A telling moment occurred when, under questioning from Rep. Butterfield, committee's lawyer was compelled to admit that he "had seen no evidence of corruption," nor any evidence that Rangel attempted to use his Congressional position to enrich himself. The worst that he could claim, was that Rangel was "overzealous" in some things he had done, and that Rangel was "sloppy" in his personal finances. Nonetheless, after a private executive session, Lofgren reported that the Subcommittee did officially find that there was "No genuine issue of material fact" in dispute regarding the basis for the Statement of Alleged Violation by Rangel. So after a three-minute public session to report that judgment, the Subcommittee then once again resumed its private deliberations, this time to consider each of the 13 points separately, on whether there is "clear and convincing evidence" that any of the counts have been proved as a matter of law, and then to report them to the full Ethics Committee for follow-up against Rangel.

About Me

Checkhov on the relationship bet. the 'student' and the state :
"..the outcry for lack of coverage in the papers indicate that public sentiment is on the side of the students. It's impossibile to pass judgment when not all facts are covered. The state forbids you to write, it forbids the truth. This is arbitrary rule yet the papers still write about rights and prerogatives of the state in connection to this same rule. The mind simply cant make sense of all this. If it aggresses against us, shouldn't we protest ?
The concept of state ought to be founded on precise legal rights.
If it is not, the state is only a bogeyman, a hollow noise producing imaginary fright"